Planning Senior-Friendly Neighbourhoods for Instrumental Activities of Daily Living: An evaluation of Macassa and Glenview West, Hamilton, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada is experiencing a demographic trend of population aging (Plouffe & Kalache, 2010). \nHamilton, Ontario is in line with this trend, with seniors being the fastest growing segment \nof Hamilton’s population (HCoA & City of Hamilton, 2014). To address challenges \nassociated with an aging population, there is an international movement advocating for the \ncreation of age-friendly communities, which provide environments to support the well- \nbeing of older residents (WHO, 2007). The well-being of seniors is affected by their ability \nto retain independence in conducting instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) within \ntheir neighbourhoods, such as walking to the store, using public transit, and getting to the \ndoctor (Hodge, 2008). This study evaluated the senior-friendliness of the Macassa and \nGlenview West neighbourhoods in Hamilton to identify which neighbourhood features are \nsupportive of, and which features pose barriers to, instrumental activities of daily living \namong seniors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".